Tao Bums Forum - Growth and development

[Stigweard]

[mYTHmAKER]

[rene]

I'm trying to simplify my life.

 

I know somebody who might agree with you.

 

Once the whole is divided, the parts need names.

There are already enough names.

One must know when to stop.

Knowing when to stop averts trouble.

Tao in the world is like a river flowing home to the sea.

[Wayfarer64]

I'm trying to simplify my life.

 

mYTHmAKER YES!!! YOU said it all right there!!!

 

As we adapt and try what ever we reason-out that we need to do as an adjustment ...

 

I note that as our world changes, yet again so we adapt -yet again that is a reactive ride on these changes I am not so sure this is the best response to this influx...

 

 

I say we should learn how to surf this tide of newbies not catagorize the flotsom...We can surf this influx like the wave it feels like to me... a Tsunami of fine folks and yes, some flotsam, a typical and natural washing in of a tide...

I say it aint broke -we just have some tidal debree when Kunlun hit the cross rip and the lagoon got over fished, so the baracuddas swam in here, hey whatever metaphore ya want we are awash in new people and attitudes and some of its rougher waves seemed unproductive in where the energy went etc...

 

Lets spend our energies wisely not in haste nor worry..

 

I actually thought that as Taoists, we'd have no fear of change and whistle our way past the broken bridges without loosing our tune nor our tempo...

 

I'm out of watery metaphores see ya round ...

Edited January 31, 2008 by Wayfarer64

[Buddy]

I'm thinking why should we think of ourselves as -ists at all? Should there be a t-shirt about we are Dao-ists? Dao should be sanatana dharma, the eternal way. Why is this not obvious?

[Stigweard]

I'm trying to simplify my life.

 

 

Hehe ... I hear ya

[Wayfarer64]

I'm thinking why should we think of ourselves as -ists at all? Should there be a t-shirt about we are Dao-ists? Dao should be sanatana dharma, the eternal way. Why is this not obvious?

 

(philosophy) ontology - A systematic account of Existence.

2. (artificial intelligence) ontology - (From philosophy) An explicit formal specification of how to represent the objects, concepts and other entities that are assumed to exist in some area of interest and the relationships that hold among them.

 

For AI systems, what "exists" is that which can be represented. When the knowledge about a domain is represented in a declarative language, the set of objects that can be represented is called the universe of discourse. We can describe the ontology of a program by defining a set of representational terms. Definitions associate the names of entities in the universe of discourse (e.g. classes, relations, functions or other objects) with human-readable text describing what the names mean, and formal axioms that constrain the interpretation and well-formed use of these terms. Formally, an ontology is the statement of a logical theory.

 

A set of agents that share the same ontology will be able to communicate about a domain of discourse without necessarily operating on a globally shared theory. We say that an agent commits to an ontology if its observable actions are consistent with the definitions in the ontology. The idea of ontological commitment is based on the Knowledge-Level perspective.

3. (information science) ontology - The hierarchical structuring of knowledge about things by subcategorising them according to their essential (or at least relevant and/or cognitive) qualities. See subject index. This is an extension of the previous senses of "ontology" (above) which has become common in discussions about the difficulty of maintaining subject indices

 

 

So what are we discussing... if not ists and isms...

 

there may be a place for that as well, even if it is fearful for some...

 

Having messages tagged by our peers instead of just writting what we want to say as we have in open forum seems just wierd to me...

 

Is this a forum were people come to cast judgement on others? I'm not so sure...I think most are to listen/read and learn...

 

So, why begin any re-structuring with an easy, (but not communicative while being judgemental...) activity that will preclude discussion with an IMHO , over simplified tagging option...

 

This Being Tagged -as in the OntHology of the problem we address here- that of tagging rude people as rude etc...seems too automated, even for cyber-space...

 

lets consider where it is we want to go before we switch our system of communication with each other.

 

I for one do not like the PM system as much as I like the open forum, it is the openness of it that attracts me back here...Creating channels in this site would be alot like digging holes in the sea!

 

Why worry about the sleuse-gates after the flood has hit-(yes more water metaphors!)...

 

We can absorb what ever arrives ... (isn't everything expanding anyway? Why not this great site),

 

While retaining our essential nature -

[三江源]

.

Edited December 9, 2015 by 三江源

[VCraigP]

I can just imagine the quick - to anger- types frantically tagging the jokes that they dont like "off topic!!!!!!!."

 

we need a little 'purple in the face' icon these days.

 

Tags would be useful for researching topics.

The whole thanking or not thanking or more convoluted methods of feedback are too open to manipulaton and are a distraction from the job of just getting along with one other or avoiding people we find lacking in nutrititive value.

 

 

I quite agree.

 

Pietro and Sean are cyber geeks par excellence.

It really is a fascinating method of Forum organization.

 

Yet who really wants to spend time tagging, regardless of it's utility.

Which people will do the most tagging? Even if those empowered to tag are limited it would still skew in some way towards the viewpoint of those who are willing to do so regardless of temperament.

 

Craig

[joeblast]

yeah...at some point you cant be too proud of this techological terror you've created I just scroll and find stuff that fits within the bounds of time and interest...

[rene]

Inevitably, some of the best stuff is found while looking for something else.

[Buddy]

Ain't that the truth!

[mYTHmAKER]

I'm thinking why should we think of ourselves as -ists at all? Should there be a t-shirt about we are Dao-ists? Dao should be sanatana dharma, the eternal way. Why is this not obvious?

 

So the question is did those originally following the Dao call or think of themselves as Daoists.

How did they refer to themselves if they did so.

[steve]

I'm thinking why should we think of ourselves as -ists at all? Should there be a t-shirt about we are Dao-ists? Dao should be sanatana dharma, the eternal way. Why is this not obvious?

This deserves emphasis.

 

Brief detour -

It's a curious thing. When someone is out there speaking the truth, they general do not refer to themselves as a member of any particular group, system, belief,... Think of Jesus, Laozi, Zhuangzi, Buddha, J Krishnamurti, Ramana Maharshi, and so on. You can bet you ass Laozi and Zhuangzi would not have claimed to be an '-ist' of any sort. They don't identify with a group because they are thinking for themselves! They are rebels. They're going against the groups, the 'beliefs', the systems, the corruption, the institutionalization. Their followers, however, start a new group studying and honoring the brilliance of these rebels. Then they all go down the same old path - institutionalization, modification, dilution, corruption. It's inevitable.

 

You must think for yourself. A teacher, group, system can only take you so far. If you follow someone else, how can you possibly find the truth? The truth has to be found in yourself. If you follow someone else all you can possibly learn is their truth - what works for them - their interpretation.

[MASTERforge]

Good post xuesheng. Absolutely correct. If you become an -ist, -um, -ian then you have put yourself in a box that you can no longer see out of. Same goes for -ism's.

 

I thought I was a Taoist until I started listening to Alan Watts. Then I thought am I a Buddhist? Then I realised that all these teachings were trying to show me the same thing but in a different way.

 

Its like trying to understand what an elephant is whilst blindfolded and only feeling the tail. You then move round the front and feel the trunk. Eventually you feel everything of the elephant. And you realise there are some things that are best left alone.

 

Blinkered religion is the cause of many a war.

 

Currently I am reading the Qu'ran trying to understand a little more about cultural events. A lot has been taken out of context. After that I plan to read the other great books. Just out of curiosity. I am not looking to convert to anything.

 

I am just trying to get a better feel for the elephant.

[Buddy]

Jesus was a Jew, Buddha a "Hindu," Muhammad...not Muslim before becoming prophet...and the list goes on.

[steve]

Jesus was a Jew, Buddha a "Hindu," Muhammad...not Muslim before becoming prophet...and the list goes on.

Jesus clearly went against the Jewish establishment, Buddha abandoned the Hindu traditions and all other existing traditions that he tried - assuming our history is accurate. In fact, there are some pretty convincing arguments that they may never have existed or may have been much different than the picture history has painted - although that's for a different discussion. We'll certainly never know what they considered themselves to be with any accuracy. Either way, they were clearly rebels who blazed new trails and thought for themselves rather than following the existing methods and belief systems.

 

Good post xuesheng. Absolutely correct. If you become an -ist, -um, -ian then you have put yourself in a box that you can no longer see out of. Same goes for -ism's.

 

I thought I was a Taoist until I started listening to Alan Watts. Then I thought am I a Buddhist? Then I realised that all these teachings were trying to show me the same thing but in a different way.

 

Its like trying to understand what an elephant is whilst blindfolded and only feeling the tail. You then move round the front and feel the trunk. Eventually you feel everything of the elephant. And you realise there are some things that are best left alone.

 

Blinkered religion is the cause of many a war.

 

Currently I am reading the Qu'ran trying to understand a little more about cultural events. A lot has been taken out of context. After that I plan to read the other great books. Just out of curiosity. I am not looking to convert to anything.

 

I am just trying to get a better feel for the elephant.

Have you read Jiddu Krishnamurti? If not, I'd highly recommend him. To Be Human is a very good place to start. Life changing stuff... for me at least.

[Stigweard]

Tao, name of no name

Tao, the ism that isn't

Tao, the word said not

 

[MASTERforge]

.

Have you read Jiddu Krishnamurti? If not, I'd highly recommend him. To Be Human is a very good place to start. Life changing stuff... for me at least.

 

I am looking on amazon for Jiddu Krishnamurti I haven't heard of him before but I am interested in his works from their titles and reviews.

 

I would like to ask why you are recommending them to me? This could help me understand a little what you have gained from them and why you would think that I could benefit.

 

I would also like to ask which of his books you would recommend because he has published a lot of work and I don't know where to dip my toe in.

 

I was trying to get rid of stuff but it seems that every 3 books I sell, I buy another.

 

Thanks xuesheng

[steve]

I would like to ask why you are recommending them to me? This could help me understand a little what you have gained from them and why you would think that I could benefit.

 

I would also like to ask which of his books you would recommend because he has published a lot of work and I don't know where to dip my toe in.

I recommended him because of your post. Your comments about taoism, buddhism, the convergence of paths, the evils of religion... "putting yourself in a box that you can no longer see out of" - it really sounds like his ideas would resonate with you.

 

I don't think I can explain it briefly but here's an attempt:

His basic ideas revolve around the truth being an innate feature of mankind that cannot be found through any particular practice, method, or path. One of his most famous talks is "Truth is a pathless land..." Reading his talks had a particularly profound effect on my view of things (along with Osho, Watts, DeMello, and a handful of others).

 

Here's a link to one of many websites about him: http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/

Wikipedia has an extensive biography of him but I'd suggest checking out what he had to say before being too biased one way or another by what has been said about him.

 

I would recommend a book called To Be Human. It picks a variety of talks from different topics and time periods and has some explanatory stuff at the end that is useful. It was the first book of his that I read and I still remember reading a bit while riding on a bus to the airport in Seattle, sitting with my mouth hanging open in wonder, reading some more, thinking some more, it was really impressive stuff. Another good one is This Light in Oneself: True Meditation. Like Osho, he never wrote anything. He gave talks and people recorded and published them.

Good luck and let me know what you think if you do check him out,

Best,

Steve

[Mal]

Yet who really wants to spend time tagging, regardless of it's utility.

 

Well I must admit I can never decide what to tag my posts at the moment so I don't bother And I wouldn't want to miss out on posts (like the Jiddu Krishnamurti ones in this thread) because they got pinned "off topic"

 

Is there a site out there that is doing this sort of stuff that we want to "copy" It would be a shame to shell out $$ for something we didn't end up using. I use to be on a site where you could give someone positive kama when they helped you and negative kama if you didn't like the post. Would just show up as a score against your avatar like the # of posts do here. Good fun, but not that "useful" as such.

[MASTERforge]

paid a visit to amazon and ordered Jiddu Krishnamurti books you recommended. I look forward to a good read.

 

Thanks

[Pietro]

Hello everybody, and thanks for all the feedback.

 

Reading through the feedback I felt the necessity to clarify a few questions.

So here is the tags F.A.Q.

 

Is the idea of letting an ontology emerge related to the use of ontologies for the AI people?

Not really, let me explain better:

The term Ontology has been used in AI pursuing a dream. The dream was to use them to make what is called the Semantic Web. The Semantic Web was the personal dream of Tim Berners-Lee. And since Tim has nearly singlehandedly created the world wide web (the internet was already there) this vision had got a LOT of attention, a lot of money, and a lot of development. But it never took off. That is not in full. Why it did not took off is too long to describe right now, but essentially it was a very top down vision, that would enviosion everything being well ordered so that machine could understand them as well as human. It did not fly because reality is not well ordered, and every human being divides reality in a different way. Instead a different vision took hold, what is now called web2.0. That thing for which Time's 2006 man of the year was You.

 

The web2.0 was mostly made by hackers. Some now millionair. The semantic vision, was mostly made by professor. Nearly all still poor. The dialectic between the web2.0 community and the semantic web community would take up many many posts. So I will spare you. But I will post you to one article and one video. The article was some sort of groudbreaking post, that most web2.0 people have read, and mostly agree with. Yes, it has been criticised, but never totally denied. It really explain why ontology does not work as a general principle, in our society, for large topics, for many people.

 

The aricle is here:

Ontology is Overrated, by Clay Shirky

 

The video instead is a funny video that shows better than many other the kind of mind opening that happen when you start to let structure emerge from the bottom up.

The video is here:

 

As such neither me nor Sean are suggesting to have an external ontology system, that would constrict people where would they write, or what to write.

 

Sean might be more attent about what is written, but that is the ethical problem, and has nothing to do with the technical solution that I am proposing here with the tags.

 

If the whole point is to reach our true nature, isn't all this too complicated?

Well, actually the whole idea of the tags is to make something as easy as possible. Yes, it might be quite complex to program it. A bit like the internet is really complex inside. But then you can absolutely use the internet without losing your true nature. And then some of us have that technical mind as part of their nature, and this is why people call us uber geek. . In other words, reality is complicated, martial arts are complicated, internet is complicated. But you can live in reality, and use the internet without handling all that complication. And about being a martial artist, well, speak to Buddy about it. I am just a tao geek.

 

Would the fact of giving to anyone the possibility to tag any post with any string imply that eventually no one will read my posts because someone tagged them as "off topic"?

 

The fact of having tags appear will never force anyone to ignore a certain post. As such if the tag "nonsense" appears, this will not, cannot, take away a post. At least not in the modifications that I have in mind. Could with time someone program a search that stops him to read posts with a specific tag? Yes, of course. But we are here to open up possibilities, if some people chose to censor themselves it is not our role to stop them, right? Can Sean write something that would stop anyone from reading posts appearing with negative tags? Sure, but would Sean do it? He has shown to be quite against censorship (within limits of good manners). There are more effective ways to censor people, just by banning them, so any modification of this type would get very much discussed before being tried out. The tags are not here to solve the ethical problem but the ontological one. Giving us enough space to grow.

 

Can a minority of people use tags to control the whole community?

 

Let's suppose we have 4 type of people:

a) people who would not tag, and would not use tags to search

people who would tag, and would not use tags to search

c) people who would not tag, and would use tags to search

d) people who would both tag and use tag in their search

 

Now I claim that there will be very few people that would tag, and not use tags to search. I mean, if you are making the (relative) effort to tag things, why would you not use the tags yourself. So mostly people who tag will also use them. But then when people start to use tags when they search, it is just a matter of time before they start tagging themselves. Things will never be tagged exactly as they wanted them, also to really be able to be sure to find back the things they need to tag. Only relying on other people tags is generally not reliable enough. It is like in delicious. Others tags can be good to discover something, but when you have discovered you definitly want to tag it yourself to make sure that you find it back. And the first time that you do not tag it yourself, and then you spend half an hour to look form something you will know that those extra 5 seconds were well spent. So essentially people will either tag and use tags, or not tag and not use tags. In this sense the possibility that a minority of the community starts to control the whole community through the tagging system is really non existant.

 

Will the experience of the community become worse for the average person who chose not to use tags?

No, it will be the same. The only difference will be that a list of tags might appear on the side (that link to some common search), and you will have the possibility to add tags. But I assume the basic window with all the new threads will still be there. Of course since the aim of adding the tags is to let the community expand beyond its current limits, the number of active threads might become much bigger.

 

Why can't we just remain as we are, and let the community find its own balance?

It is true that this community will always find its balance. If too many people will be posting the community will look as too complex, and no new people will join. Instead old people will gradually leave, until the community will reach its equilibrium again. We had this dynamic happen at the HT discussion board many times. But right now we are in the unique positon to be able to let the community grow, riding the wave. If this happens TTB might become the number one community on the web dedicated to inter school taoist meditation. This would mean that we get a direct experience on all the new school that will open up.

And we get to be among the first to give some direct feedback. Also greater teachers will start postiong here. Already a number of instructors, sifu, teachers, and academics are writing here. But to make the place wide enough for all of them we need to make a space that can expand with the people. If not those teachers will just start to trample on each other foot, and eventually leave.

Edited February 1, 2008 by Pietro

[steve]

Why can't we just remain as we are, and let the community find its own balance?

 

It seems to me that this would be the tendency for a forum devoted to Daoism and related discussion...